So a conversation started up at work with myself and the only guy I know that avidly follows the NFL here (a Colts fan) and we were disccusing the 3-4 D. The topic shifted to the Seahawks defense due to my frustration about a consistent pass rush and I tried to explain it as best I could as a hybrid 3-4/4-3 (3.5/3). He eventually asked why we didnt move to a 3-4 since we seemed to have good personal for it and I couldn't really answer other than to say "I just dont think Pete Carroll and Gus Bradley like it".

Not sure how much discussion has been done on it before (oddly enough I couldn't find much in the search function under '3-4') but I was wondering if we ever would convert to it and how we could play it...

I think if we did go to a 3-4, hypothetically, Branch and Jones rotate at the RDE position. Branch also becomes the backup to Red so he gives him a breather there once in a while. KJ Wright slides back into the middle next to Wagner and Irvin slides out to LOLB.

That being said, hawksfan515 is right. We run some 3-4 bases, sometimes, but I doubt we'd see Pete make a move to the 3-4. He's always been a 4-3 dude, same with Bradley, so I don't see them abandoning their unique 4-3 that they've built anytime soon.

It always is nice to have more possible pass rushers on your team. The teams with the best pass rush always seem to have more than just 2 outside rushers that they can rotate. Giants, 49ers *frown* , Houston.

Would love to see that, and Wright could slide out as well for rotational subs, or when/if we go into nickel.

I've been wanting this forever, and almost always set them up like this is madden heh.

This is an interesting idea. The more I think about this we actually have great personnel to do this.

Being a DE in a 4-3 is a totally different task as being a DT/DE in a 3-4. However, I actually agree that we have some good personnel for it. 4-3 lines are (traditionally) trying to penetrate, they are your source of pressure on the line and the QB... In a 3-4 the line is basically controlling a particular gap and doing their best impression of a brick wall. Mebane and Bryant actually seem like they would be good at this.

I would assume they would put Branch as the nose tackle, Bryant on the right and Mebane on the left.

The linebackers are where things get interesting to me when i think about this. Having Irvin back as an outside linebacker in a 3-4 might really unlock his potential. I would put Wagner and Wright as the two inside line backers, and Clemons as the other outside linebacker. The real question marks here are how would Irvin and Clemons do dropping back into coverage? This is a responsibility they are not used to.

Although it is intriguing, I think the temporary hit is very severe while they relearn, and considering that we are playing at a pretty high level right now its not time to experiment. The time to make this change is when you have a crap season, not when you are competitive for a playoff spot.

Another thing to think about is how Pete is always creating weird mismatches. Think about Bryant being a DE instead of DT. It might be by having 3-4 type linemen on a 4-3 line that teams have a hard time preparing for us, or at least we are different to prepare for than other teams. Same with our Giant DB's.

The most obvious benefit of the 3-4 is that teams can rush from a lot of different angles and mask them. The hybrid defense being run by this team has been pretty good at doing the same thing. This team does a lot of bizarre things on defense, and that's a major advantage.

The hybrid defense is built around the strengths of the players other teams didn't covet, particularly up front. There aren't enough great players in the league for this team to easily find players that play a standard defensive front well and pay everybody. It's possible, but it's pretty difficult. Instead of trying to find guys to cram into the system, they make the system work with players with specific skill sets that are obtainable without a huge risk.

The two places that stand out to me in this unconventional setup are the guys on the line and the secondary. Clemons was an insane bargain because instead of trying to make him versatile they put him in a position to do what he does best. Bryant was moved to do the same thing (and these two complement each other very well with extreme skill sets). On top of this, Irvin was drafted simply as a pure pass rusher who comes in at the right times.

Browner was free, and Sherman was a lower draft pick. Browner isn't the most athletically gifted, but he and Sherman play press coverage as good as anyone and Browner molests receivers until they get frustrated. Sherman has turned out to be a first-round talent that went in the fifth round.

We're not a traditional 4-3 team, 'cos Bryant is like a 3-4 end and Clemons has the skill set of a 3-4 OLB and lines up in similarr ways. Having said that, with his hand on the ground Clemons plays the run quite well.

The good thing about Pete's scheme is that it takes players who aren't necessarily prototype fits for other schemes out there, like Clemons. Why change this? You're just making it harder to pick up talent. Plus we don't really have great talent for a 3-4. We don't have an obvious 3-4 NT, we don't have a second 3-4 DE, Wagner is great as a 4-3 MLB but undersized to play ILB where he'd take on OGs more often, and I don't think we have game changing OLBs. Irvin looks like our future Leo where we can send him after the QB and chase down running plays from the back end. Why make him play in space? He doesn't have a huge football background and may not have the instincts.

Having said all of that mate, I think I live within 20 miles of you so we might need to meet up if there is a Seahawks SB appearance this year!

None of out tackles would be great NT's. Nose Tackles are almost always 350 and crazy strong. A great NT never rushes but can handle 2 gap pretty well. I dont think any of our tackles can handle the 2 gap as well as you guys might think.

hawksincebirth wrote:So Russell has leverage but marshawn doesn't ? I thought its next man up. Hey we got t jack and bj Daniels right ??

Draft Ziggy Ansah... problem solved. He can play any position in the 3-4 and I'm not kidding. The guy is an absolute freakish monster. 6'6" 280 and runs the 200 in 21 flat. He's going to blow the doors off at the combine, and you throw him in the mix with Irvin, Clemons, Mebane, Red, Branch, Jones, and the rest, then I think the defensive front 7 will be so relentless and unstoppable that no team can scheme for them and it doesn't matter who we are playing.

Pete has been a guy who always wants to impose his will on the opponent rather than the other way around. If he goes to a 3-4 look it is because he wants to throw a different look out there, it isn't guys scrambling to a 3-4 to cover a certain offensive set. Same with the 4-3 looks. We've seen opposing offenses call timeouts many more times than we've seen our defense call timeouts because of personnel mismatches. In fact I can think of at least 5 times offenses have been confused by the look our D was giving them and the QB called a timeout, and possibly once, or twice max where our D was mixed up and had to call it (and I believe it was because we had 12 men on, not because we had the incorrect personnel grouping).

What's wrong with the current hybrid 4:3/3:4 they run now? and like others have already said, they really dont have the giant NG to run a straight up 3:4.. otherwise I think they've got the depth at LB

Aerik wrote:What's wrong with the current hybrid 4:3/3:4 they run now? and like others have already said, they really dont have the giant NG to run a straight up 3:4.. otherwise I think they've got the depth at LB

Yeah I like our scheme now, mainly because we get such value in the later rounds on defense. How else do you think we found Brandon Browner, Richard Sherman, KJ Wright, Malcolm Smith, Kam Chancellor, Alan Branch, and Chris Clemons on the cheap?

We don't run a 3-4 in any way. We have a 4-3 alignment called the 4-3 Under that looks like a 3-4. A more accurate description of our defense would be a dynamic 4-3 since we shift alignments quite a bit within the 4-3. Run downs you often see the Under alignment. Then we have all sorts of nickel and dime packages and sometimes in pure passing situations our ends are at the 9 a la Wide 9, but obviously not stupid enough to try and make that a base defense along the LOS. Our defense is very dynamic and utilizes everything BUT a 3-4. The 4-3 Under alignment just looks like it and most of the time has the same gap control in run D (NT can line up at the 0 tech in 3-4).

HighlandHawk wrote:So a conversation started up at work with myself and the only guy I know that avidly follows the NFL here (a Colts fan) and we were disccusing the 3-4 D. The topic shifted to the Seahawks defense due to my frustration about a consistent pass rush and I tried to explain it as best I could as a hybrid 3-4/4-3 (3.5/3). He eventually asked why we didnt move to a 3-4 since we seemed to have good personal for it and I couldn't really answer other than to say "I just dont think Pete Carroll and Gus Bradley like it".

Not sure how much discussion has been done on it before (oddly enough I couldn't find much in the search function under '3-4') but I was wondering if we ever would convert to it and how we could play it...

The nice thing about this defense and their personnel is they can keep a consistent enough pass pressure with just their front four. Very unique. That's the way Pete likes it. The Hawks have a couple key free agents this season in Branch and Jones. Don't think that will affect how they run things next season. They will find their pieces and plug in and go.

Thomas Paine: To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead

I thought about the 3-4 as well. The LBs in peticular are a good fit. However I don't think PC is a big fan of it. What I do see is a hybrid use of a variant of the 46 and the Bandit.

The logic would be play off the size and speed of the d and the large defensive backsAll 3 of the linebackers have very good to excellent speed (assuming we use Smith) and it would be a nightmare to scheme against